updated 12:40 pm EDT, Mon April 4, 2011

86pc of Android devs hurt by fragmentation

A fresh study from Baird venture capitalist William Powers has suggested that 86 percent of Android developers see OS version fragmentation as a problem. Only 14 percent of the 250 developers asked didn't see it as an issue, while 57 percent either saw it as a "meaningful" or a "huge" problem. He added that some were also worried about store fragmentation triggered by the Amazon Appstore and other portals.

Many also found iOS easier to code for than Android, and thought it was considerably easier to get app exposure and proper pay on iOS than on Android. There were a large number of "junk" apps making it harder to be seen.

Wilson still argued that developers should write for Android first, but developers were hedging bets and usually writing for both. About 71 percent of those asked were writing for Android, but 62 percent were supporting Apple's platform and by extension writing for both. Just 27 percent were developing for another platform, in part because Android and iOS were much easier to program than BlackBerry or Symbian.

Google until recently repeatedlydenied that fragmentation even existed and, at one point, falsely claimed that Android apps would work across virtually all platforms. Some apps, especially many of Google's newer apps, won't run on anything less than Android 2.2, which excluded most of the Android user base until early this year.

The firm has recently shown signs of admitting the problem exists and is unofficially believed to be engaging in a crackdown on excess fragmentation that would limit how much HTC, Motorola, Samsung, or any other vendor could change. Its decision to withhold source for Android 3.0 is owed both to the rush to get a release out before the iPad 2 but also to control fragmentation. The move conveniently prevents companies from installing Android 3.0 on devices that aren't optimized for the OS or getting an early start on customizations.

Hardware OEMs have often thrived on Android fragmentation since they believe it helps them arbitrarily differentiate their phones, but the policy has usually led to months long delays for updates and, in some cases, completely orphaned products like the Galaxy Tab that won't get an update beyond what first shipped.

Google is deathly afraid of Amazon

Amazon could crush the Android Market. Easily. They have content, they have a delivery mechanism, and most importantly they have experience delivering products to end users. All Google has experience with is delivering AdMob ads to end users.

Fear of Amazon creating their own splinter of Android to crush all the other Android splinters is why Google closed the Honeybomb, er, Honeycomb source code. They want to keep it secret for as long as they can, in a desperate attempt to make something, anything, happen in the pad computing space for them. Good luck with those Honeycomb "shortcuts."

Apparently, a money-making platform no longer

matters to Wall Street. The only thing that matters is who has the biggest market share for some reason. I honestly fail to understand how this view came about. Nokia was practically on the verge of collapse until Microsoft came to their rescue and Nokia still has a fairly large market share. I really don't see how Android is providing Google or developers with revenue in proportion to market share. Exactly what makes Android a better or healthier platform than iOS apart from unit sales of cheaper products. I do see some benefit for consumers in terms of cheaper cost and more models of smartphones, but it really appears that the Android financial model leaves something to be desired. Is Android's strength being based on some future potential or its current revenue-making ability?

Does anyone have a link of Android's current revenue by fiscal quarter of how much it is earning for Google? Since it won't be in licensing fees, it would have to be ad revenue.

it is a problem

Seeing as how I develop MOBILE apps (not just iOS apps or Android apps), I don't care WHO wins, I just want to make money from my ideas which become apps.

As to this report, I do agree fragmentation IS a major problem. If you want your app on as MANY devices as possible, then it does take more time to dev for Android and the potential issue of software, not to mention hardware, fragmentation is a problem. So Wrency and the rest of the droid fanbois can say how much they love droid - great, glad you do. But from my own experience and other developers I talk with this IS an issue and has nothing to do with being a fanbois of either device.

I wish when it came to this topic more developers would speak up. I do know for some it isn't an issue. This reports puts numbers on what to this point were just many conversations with many other developers.

What's App?

To a great extent, it depends upon what your app is supposed to do. If it's a simplified version of something that would work on a desktop/laptop, you already have to deal with multiple screen sizes, input methods etc. etc. If you are writing full screen apps (like most games) the issue gets bigger: you have to ensure that your game not only looks OK, but also that it plays OK on devices of various types, with various screen sizes, and various control mechanics. That quickly becomes a pain.

There's also the issue of assets: icons and so forth. If you want to make them look good at various sizes and resolutions, you have to cater for that. Not a huge task, but not a minor one either.

And of course with Android devices, you have to consider how you'll secure your efforts: either go with a shareware/honor system (easiest and actually not bad on some platforms, but not so hot on "free" platforms), serial codes (pretty easy, but very open to piracy), registered serials (more complex, more time and resources needed for customer support, still open to piracy), or hardcore lockdowns closer to SecueROM (expensive, complex, makes "customers" hate you, makes piracy harder but also makes pirates -want- to break your copy protection and illegal users feel justified that they've struck back against "the man").